Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 FrenchIrishGal
Joined: 9/25/2009
Msg: 101
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum TheoryPage 5 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
And by the way Giorgio is something. Isn't he?
 FrenchIrishGal
Joined: 9/25/2009
Msg: 102
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 1/19/2013 9:42:58 PM
What I mean is Giorgio is a little over the top when it comes to his interpretation of aliens being such a strong benefactor to the origins of man as we know it
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 103
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 1/19/2013 10:26:31 PM

Science is so busy trying to disprove the existance of a "Higher Power", which I refer to as God as I know and understand Him. But, is there anyone out there actually trying to prove that He does exist?


I wish this falsehood wasn't so widely believed. Science isn't trying to disprove the existence of a higher power. Never was, and never will. Also...yes, there have been, and are, many who're trying to prove that a higher power does exist.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 104
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/6/2013 10:08:58 AM
Am I able to delete this thread that I started somehow? The op is so dumb, I was just trying to put some jabber out there to get some discussion.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 105
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/6/2013 4:33:27 PM

Am I able to delete this thread that I started somehow? The op is so dumb, I was just trying to put some jabber out there to get some discussion.

You could always do something even more impressive.

Continue the discussion. You created the topic. You set the tone. You define the arguments. You control the conversation.

The OP isn't dumb. It just isn't magic and no amount of wishing for the right set of words to kick off a topic fulfilling any purpose is going to just occur without input.

For example:

There may have been a single initial Big Bang, but it's interesting to me to suspect that the physics which describe the big bang are describing something that happens regularly and plays a more common and present role in how everything happens -

There is another thread here which turned absolutely adamant that nothing existed prior to the big bang. No time, no space, no matter. I think that sounds like magical fairy talk. I don't think there can be any other logical conclusion then towards the "commonality" of a singularity event that has occurred many times and that requires it to have occurred within a larger universal structure. There has never been a hint of physics that don't agree with the laws of nature so to assume that this external universe doesn't have similar laws but may appear wildly different due to scale seems just as irrational as expecting "something coming from nothing".

Even thought about it again this morning. We are surrounded by cosmic background radiation from the big bang which caused inflation and continues through with expansion. What if that background radiation was actually our own 'universal' bubble popping and the filaments enclosing our universe disintegrated like a popping balloon or bubble leaving our matter to begin drifting towards the vacuum of the 'real' super universe. Dark matter isn't matter at all but actual emptiness which in all absence of matter is an even stronger vacuum causing dense gravity and enough to bend light. Dark flow is just the movement around these bubbles of nothingness which is the larger universes makeup.

So, our big bang wasn't a bang. It was already a bubble and the bubble shell burst. this is why we are expanding in all directions and why we are surrounded by radiation evenly and in all directions and it occurred within seconds. It wasn't a boom or an inflation but a "pop". The energy released by the pop kick started the engine that began the movement that started the natural processes that started building galaxies.

There... more jabber.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 106
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/6/2013 4:51:26 PM
aries:

I don't want to completely set the tone, define the arguments, or control the conversation (just discourage some of the crap)...and even with that flexibility there doesn't seem to be much interest in this thread. So I'd just do it over again, differently. I can simply post a "revised agenda", which I might get around to, but we still have the title that we have and that post will go unnoticed eventually since it's not the op and if there's any follow-up it won't be the most recent post to read, so it might not affect interest or participation.
 cbbull21
Joined: 3/9/2009
Msg: 107
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/6/2013 8:19:41 PM
I don't really know what is beyond our current theories or hypotheses.

There is at least one hypothesis that if the universe restarts after a "Big Crunch" with another "Big Bang" the slate could be wiped clean. No information of the prior universe will remain. Even the physical laws can change. An endless cycle of these could occur without entropy ever building up to such a level that a new cycle just can't happen because there isn't enough energy. The universe may never have to whimper out into a cold and dead state in something like 10^40 years from now. I kind of like the way National Geographic (methinks) portrayed this scenario.

I find some of the hypothesis/theories of how the universe could come from literally nothing to be quite hokey.
Some of those as to why gravity isn't stronger compared to the other fundamental forces than it is seem to be imaginative ways to say it's leaking or hiding somewhere else. (Somewhere along the lines of quantum loop gravity, string theory, and brane theory)

From my understanding of classical electromagnetism, one of the first problems you run into as you expand upon the basic premises is the result that it would take an infinite amount of energy to create a point-like electron, but they exist that way nonetheless. (If I recall/interpret correctly, Griffiths proves that a Theta function electron, basically an electron born at time t which "pours out" or radiates an electric field at the speed of light (indistinguishable from an eternal electron within the bubble) also solves Dirac's equations. It was never made clear to me whether or not this implies all electrons/protons in our universe have had basically an infinite amount of time to live, so even if they were born at time t then we can't find anywhere in the universe that their electric field hasn't radiated that far. What does that say for matter--anti-matter collisions. Charge is still conserved which avoids a possible dooms-day scenario. We couldn't count on chemistry to work if all of a sudden there was an electron genocide. If all the electrons in the universe are only as old as time t or younger then I might intuitively see a connection to "dark-matter and dark energy."

Electrons may not be point-like after all and as to why could be verified by supersymmetry or another theory.

I had a discussion with a friend today. He said that he would love for the standard model and the search for the Higgs Boson to be false or go unexpectedly such as to leave room form more exotic physics, some of which may be necessary for time travel.

I'm still not exactly sure what matter is other than relatively localized energy. We often define matter as that which has mass and takes up space, but I am not sure if we should mean that it contains space or excludes space from it.
I'm not the first one to think of it, but if it displaces space then one might envision gravity as a result of the "pressure" upon or within (space-time?) associated with the displacement. Gravity problem solved...?
Protons aren't known to feasibly decay, but other particles do. Would a "time or space-time leaks in" model account for the predictable half-lives of isotopes?

I'm not sure if that makes any sense to anyone else.
 cbbull21
Joined: 3/9/2009
Msg: 108
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/6/2013 9:16:40 PM
@Completely-Incomplete
Msg: 124

If someone can't accept a history of human evolution that doesn't include ancient alien interference then it's logically impossible for them to accept any history of said alien's evolution without another alien interference, reduction ad absurdum. That doesn't necessarily mean that aliens haven't interfered here on Earth, but at least one civilization must have evolved independently. If said individual can't accept that then he/she logically must believe that there is/was a timeless eternal civilization or individual, deities if you will. This means that they would have to hold the belief that all civilizations can be grouped into families spawned or indirectly spawned from said deities respectively and no civilizations are products of simple evolutionary biology. If such is the case then they should cut the crap in-between and say, "God created humans,... and possibly aliens too." In summation one must either believe in God/gods or evolution from scratch happens (with or without God's interference).

I post it here because I wasn't sure that you'd readily see it in a more appropriate thread where I might elaborate if need be.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 109
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/6/2013 9:19:29 PM

I find some of the hypothesis/theories of how the universe could come from literally nothing to be quite hokey.

As I understand it, there is no theory which says that the universe came from nothing. Formal science simply says that the best implication, so far, is that everything was together in one place, "compressed", and it expanded, for whatever reason. Science says simply that that's all we know so far. Beyond that, we simply don't know, but there's no credible claim, as far as I know, that everything came from nothing. This is one unfortunate feature of what people think expansion, or the big bang, is about, but it's not. Conversation on such things among us lay people would be more productive if such falsehoods would go away.

I usually hesitate to assume credibility for the more technical conversation someone makes when I see that they get basic stuff like that wrong.

He said that he would love for the standard model and the search for the Higgs Boson to be false or go unexpectedly such as to leave room form more exotic physics, some of which may be necessary for time travel.

I'd rather find out that we can figure out a way to achieve practical speeds to other stars (from understanding gravity - higgs?) than be able to travel through time.

I'm still not exactly sure what matter is other than relatively localized energy. We often define matter as that which has mass and takes up space, but I am not sure if we should mean that it contains space or excludes space from it.

Yes, that's a bit fascinating. Matter is just energy "bound up", but energy is some particle of matter moving and doing something.
 cbbull21
Joined: 3/9/2009
Msg: 110
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/6/2013 9:43:10 PM
He didn't state time travel but I implied it from what I've read including Michio Kaku's Physics of the Impossible.


energy is some particle of matter moving and doing something.

That's not necessarily true. There's energy stored in electromagnetic fields, but it's not exactly anywhere but stored within the field(possibly quasi-static/static) with a spatial density function. Stored as what(packets or smears), I don't know.

I forgot to mention in my first post tonight that a lot of things would make more sense or can be misconstrued based on exactly how one interprets/misinterprets the "permittivity" and "permeability" of free space, which are ever present in electromagnetics. No doubt I would be proven wrong if I made any speculations upon which these are the crux.
 cbbull21
Joined: 3/9/2009
Msg: 111
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/6/2013 10:02:51 PM
I am willing to believe that provided energy exists within the universe that matter would naturally form from that.
I imagine it to be a uniform or near uniform sea. The deviation from uniformity ironically has been hypothesized to be the exact cause of our universe and precisely it's physical laws and constants. The sea gets choppier and waves/densities at or above certain levels start forming certain types of matter. Not so much a big bang but a big boil or fizz.
(The universe is the head on God's beer or the fizz in his drink? Sounds comical in some way to me.)
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 112
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/7/2013 2:49:14 AM
The universe is butt a FART.

Proteins and sugars, calcium and H2O ..oh.. and would you like a little chaos with your spice?(salt)
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 113
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/7/2013 10:49:49 AM

I imagine it to be a uniform or near uniform sea. The deviation from uniformity ironically has been hypothesized to be the exact cause of our universe and precisely it's physical laws and constants. The sea gets choppier and waves/densities at or above certain levels start forming certain types of matter. Not so much a big bang but a big boil or fizz.


If you have a bunch of nothing and you could impose an infitesimal variation of this nothing, by definition some kind of charge or quark, property values and not particle descriptions, just a variation of uniformity (brownian motion), then by definition you have the composition of "subatomic particles" or quantized wavefunctions, which themselves are just measurements within a field, given of course there is something to measure in the field, like some mass-energy (the very progenator of spacetime itself).


If you have a big nothing and you create anything in it, any kind of significant variation whatsoever you literally define mass-energy, no matter how infitesimal. The GR result, in the absence of any other mass-energy to hold up any shape of spacetime, is a singularity of spacetime folding around the sudden mass-energy...

Big Bang.

Frank Close - Lucifer's Legacy: The Meaning of Asymmetry

If this is true and according to current modelling it must be...but is an unfalsifiable hypothesis so is not dealt with and remains within the realm of philosophy and banter

And this is something I wanted for this thread - to still speculate nonetheless, but do so in a “scientifically” objective (and productive?) manner. Thank you.
 cbbull21
Joined: 3/9/2009
Msg: 114
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/7/2013 8:02:59 PM
Provided space (as in Cartesian space) existed or was created in the process. One can imply, from the waves analogy, that the "fizz" or "boil" were any number of events manifest at any number of coordinates within the universe which would make it impossible to have a singular point center of the universe. Why would the boil begin and how it progressed would have great implications. Did it build up slowly, or in a flash? It had to virtually stop at some point if energy is not infinite or infinitely dense anywhere. Why doesn't it still keep belching today, outside of particle--anti-particle pairs? The answer is probably as mundane as it lacks sufficient potential.

We may never become Type II, III, or IV civilizations capable of testing what happens if we do super high energy experiments (well beyond TeV).

I'm not sure if I have any interest in retro-causality. Maybe that's why the best laid plans never go expectedly. Could the act of planning affect the environment of the plans execution? Maybe I got that backwards. Things will go unexpectedly, therefore you will plan, but not for everything.
Quantum entanglement must be a non-local phenomenon or mechanism, but we may never satisfactorily explain it.

I have read that in order to avoid a Grandfather Paradox, the closer you are to creating the paradox the more the universe seems to buck against you. (The gun misfires, etc.) Now Dr. Who comes to mind, but not clearly, and I think I'm going in the wrong direction for the thread. In the Impossible Planet episode Tennant says, "What does that mean, 'Before Time'?" and the wicked one responds along the lines of, "There was nothing before time? Is that YOUR religion(prejudice/belief/axiom/or however you interpret it)?" This idea strikes me for some reason.

"We are all cousins" (50th or less by some estimates)
It makes you rethink your humanity and how you perceive and treat others, doesn't it? Another thread...
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 115
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/15/2013 7:36:10 AM
There is this thing called a "thought experiment". Basically it's thinking through something (for which we might not be able to have empirical data, or do physical experiments) but knowing how to do so objectively, with scientific integrity. This is actually done all of the time, and can be very productive.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 116
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/21/2013 11:28:21 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-vKh_jKX7Q

...was watching something about the current model(s) of elementary particles: leptons, quarks, force carriers, and the higgs (boson or field?)...

I mentioned it before - I still think that a simple board game is a very, very good demonstration/example of what goes on when trying to figure things out, such that if people played this game, they could more consciously understand some of the dynamics of "thinking"...the board game being as a tool that is accessible to everyone despite how smart they think of themselves as.

It's called Mastermind (don't personally like the name), the game where one person creates a combination, and another tries to figure out that combination.

A big part of what I think is so excellent about this little game is...

The "guesser" receives clues (data), and has to think of probable solutions that fits all of the data. You find yourself choosing and pursuing a possible solution, and sometimes finding out that you have to go back and come up with a whole different possibility for the answer. All of the data up to a point fit your current model of what the data might mean, then you find out it's not right, and you have to figure out something else that also fits all of the data. Just the process of going back and forth between all of the clues that you've received in order to deduce what the answer is, not being able to ignore a single clue (unless you want to "go down a false alley" and lose), and having to figure out how to even interpret the clues, is even fun just to watch. The game even demonstrates how intuition is part of science. (My record in the game is one guess/the first guess...but that's not really fair, because that was a case of playing my opponent, not the game, like in poker.)

Thinking about our trying to figure out the elementary particles is one of the things that makes me think of this little board game.

I still entertain an ambiguous possibility that mass, and maybe gravity, is not really due to a specific elementary particle nor a field...might it be just a phenomena emerging from certain interactions with certain combinations of elementary particles, or the motion/speed of such - movement/events/energy transduction, having to do with, or similar to, the fact that time isn't any kind of particle or force but just our experience of things changing, events happening - energy transduction.

There used to be a thread in which I and one or two others argued a little about time, and some things were metioned that had something to do with planck scale or planck time...I wish I could re-visit that particular conversation.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 117
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/21/2013 12:22:43 PM
We have to bear in mind that there are many ways of seeing the same thing, so any theory we create to explain things is only one conceptual model of a deeper reality.

Is the universe composed of strings?...quarks?...waves?...particles?...energy?...consciousness?...spacetime?...love?...some or all of the foregoing?...something else?

I think we can all agree that it is composed of "stuff"; we just create different models of what we think that "stuff" is.

Going with the "stuff" model, we can rename it to something we are familiar with and find similarities between what we "know" of what we are familiar with and the "stuff" we are theorizing about. Since even what we "know" about is composed of the same thing as what we theorize about, it stands to reason that analogous properties will be found in the larger theory as in the "lesser model" (or "facet" of reality).

The best we can hope to do is expand our lesser theories into larger, more encompassing ones by refinement. We will never really have a theory that explains all of reality as any more than one way of looking at it, so it will always be somewhat erroneous to say it is composed of anything but indefinite "stuff."

This then is my GUT, my TOE:
The universe is composed of "stuff."
...I therefore set my TOE before you all for peer revue and possible refutation. (LOL)
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 118
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/21/2013 1:58:44 PM
to:

drinkthesunwithmyface


Msg: 6

''And, whether or not there's a creator has nothing to do with religion. That's not what religion is about. Also, I'm kinda sure that if there's a creator of a godlike sort, that he/she could create without science. Science is the act of man thinking about things. A godlike creator wouldn't need that.''

''And it certainly isn't a symbiotic relationship. Science would do much, much better without the other. It's more like a destructive parasitic relationship''.

''And, whether or not there's a creator has nothing to do with religion. That's not what religion is about''

THAT is so true, if you are referring to almost ALL of organized religion.
almost all of organized religion is dishonest.

''I'm kinda sure that if there's a creator of a godlike sort, that he/she could create without science. Science is the act of man thinking about things''.

it's god's science, [that we are discovering], if there is a god.

I believe modern science [scientific process] was initiated by god believers also.
the science we are discovering was the process used by god.
god uses processes, if there is a god, of course.

science is the act of man DICOVERING things.

''And it certainly isn't a symbiotic relationship. Science would do much, much better without the other. It's more like a destructive parasitic relationship''.

they are both pretty mucked up by humans, but science and religion have to agree 100% eventually, or one or both are wrong, at least on some, or many points.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 119
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/21/2013 4:31:23 PM

...I therefore set my TOE before you all for peer revue and possible refutation. (LOL)

I second this and don't even need the LOL.

Wonder what it would be like to talk about it with people that didn't have the theory of, "I'm right and you are an idiot."

Probably another infinitely impossible dream.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 120
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/21/2013 6:06:01 PM
dukky

to create a universe you need 'something' to set it in motion, and all the laws of physics.
and, 'it's' all created out of nothing.
because there was nothing.

take away the laws, and it ALL disappears.

stuff only exits today because of some fine tuned laws that were set in place somewhere around the beginning of the universe.

it either happened by itself, or somebody did it.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 121
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/21/2013 8:15:21 PM
^ You are simply pointing out the question(s)...how did it all come to be? etc.

But the trick is answering the question, knowing how to do so, and figuring out how to know how to do so, etc.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 122
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/21/2013 8:27:01 PM
''But the trick is answering the question, knowing how to do so, and figuring out how to know how to do so, etc.''



a materialistic natural answer? well, no one can do that right now.

its all conjecture and fun.

as long as everyone understands that.

science aint got a thing that does away with a creator, as some believe.

what science discovers is only gods process.
which is what these laws can be interpreted as just as easy.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 123
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/21/2013 10:17:25 PM
I think we do our imaginations a disservice by trying to fit things into neat little categories that fit our worldview. It's probably time the human animal humbled itself a bit by admitting how little it really knows.

Was everything created, or did it always exist?...Taking time into consideration (and what IS time anyway?), it may be that to exist at all is to exist in eternity.

I once did a short, fanciful piece about God being the self-creating entity that evolved to "Godhood" from our machines (that WE created) and eventually completed the eternal circuit by going back to "the beginning" and putting His Creation into motion by creating everything. It entertained me to think that we created the God that turned around and created us and everything else.

I see the universe/multiverse as an ongoing process that is evolving into the eternal thing that created it in the first place. (a sort of closed loop of creation) I like to think that's the way it is, because it makes us at once so much more than we think we are...It makes us more than the children of creation; it makes us the the co-authors of the universe and the creators of God.

Who knows?...It may be that man created God, not just out of fear of the unknown, but in reality. Then again, maybe all of creation is just a joke because nothing was ever created.

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 124
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/21/2013 11:10:44 PM
''"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire '' I am laughing now!

George Carlin's religion jokes make me laugh too!
duk, do you believe all the shit they try to pass as science? say no!!
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 125
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/22/2013 12:00:52 AM

a materialistic natural answer? well, no one can do that right now.

its all conjecture and fun.

as long as everyone understands that.

science aint got a thing that does away with a creator, as some believe.

what science discovers is only gods process.
which is what these laws can be interpreted as just as easy.


As I said, the trick is to answer the question, and know how to do so.

And this ^ is not a productive attitude, and would never get the job done.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory